So in what now seems like a different lifetime, I had written about an issue we had had with The Third Reviewer and one of our manuscripts at a Fancy Journal. To summarize, we had two initial good reviews who had agreed to accept the paper, when the journal decided to add a third, who trashed the paper and thus, this being a Fancy Journal, got the whole thing rejected. Against all odds, we went on the warpath against this reviewer and appealed the decision, this never having worked in the past.

And… ten weeks later WE WON!! Paper is accepted, Third Reviewer has been vanquished, and a piece of the Mojo Banjo has been recovered! Now it’s time to…

Indeed, a solid response refuting The Third Reviewer does sometimes work, especially when you’ve got great work supported by the other two reviewers. As Brother Drug sez, The Third Reviewer may indeed suck it.